Public comment protocol in Ridgewood is detailed

The perception that the Ridgewood Planning Board is trying to silence residents and prevent them from participating in ongoing public hearings is an understandable one, but the notion is simply untrue, village officials said.

Two members of the Village Council addressed those concerns last month, saying the Planning Board is legally obligated to follow a specific meeting protocol established by New Jersey state statute. Their explanations during a December meeting seemingly answered several residents, many of whom have complained in various forms that their voices were not being heard in The Valley Hospital and multi-family housing hearings.

According to Mayor Paul Aronsohn, the Planning Board follows a state standardized procedure that more resembles a court proceeding rather than a municipal governing body meeting. Aronsohn and Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli are also members of the Planning Board.

"It's a quasi-judicial process," Aronsohn said at the Dec. 11 council meeting. "It's not like this process; it's a very different animal than the council."

"The Planning Board ... proceeds as if the applicants were before them like people in front of a court," said Pucciarelli, an attorney and long-time member of both Ridgewood land use boards. "The hearing process involves a presentation of evidence, and that evidence can be questioned during that hearing. The Planning Board attorney is careful to exclude [public] comments about applications that would've been made outside of the process of hearing that application.

"By contrast, [at council meetings] we welcome and invite everyone, we have an open microphone basically," he added. "We welcome open comments on all subjects. We are a legislative body; it's very different than what goes on at the Planning Board."

The mayor explained that during Planning Board meetings, open public comments are restricted to issues that do not appear on the board's agenda - in other words, residents are prohibited from speaking openly on the hospital and downtown housing applications when meetings commence. For matters currently before the board, audience members are granted specific times and opportunities to question witnesses and offer their own testimony.

Still, the mayor and deputy mayor said they and other Planning Board members share residents' frustrations because "we, too, want to hear from the public," Aronsohn said.

Addressing the council, resident Boyd Loving advised the board to take better measures to inform the public when it will be permitted to speak. Though Loving said he has not attended the board hearings, he noted that at least one resident publicly complained to the council about the process, while others have aired grievances in local newspapers and online forums.

"I'm becoming alarmed that something is going on at the Planning Board, that we're basically trying to block the residents out, trying to frustrate residents," Loving said.

"I don't know what can be done about it, but one of the things I suggest is that if you're not going to be hearing comments at a Planning Board meeting, that needs to be made clear when the agenda's announced and when press releases are sent out so people don't come and end up spending hours there and are frustrated when they're not allowed to make comments," Loving added.

The Planning Board makes available at every meeting a six-page bulletin outlining its procedures and expected audience conduct during public hearings. The document also notes seven steps in the public hearing sequence, with step five calling for public testimony.

"After the completion of testimony by the applicant, the board's experts and experts representing other parties, the general public will be invited to present testimony," the bulletin reads. It also states that speakers "must be sworn and their testimony adequately supported by evidence" and are subject to potential cross-examination by attorneys.

The handout, which is also available on the Village of Ridgewood website, also lists rules for public participation during the hearing, including authorized times when speakers may question witnesses and experts.

"One of the challenges is that different people show up to different meetings, so we're going to make more of a conscious effort to explain that there are certain rules that we have to, by state statute, follow," Aronsohn said. "It is frustrating - frustrating to the residents sitting in the audience, frustrating to those of us sitting on the dais because we want to hear the public speak."

The New Jersey League of Municipalities (NJLM) has reviewed the state's Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) and how the legislation addresses public comments. According to Deborah M. Kole, a staff attorney at NJLM, public comment periods are required under OPMA during meetings of municipal governing bodies and Boards of Education. But Kole noted, in an explanatory letter published on the league's website, that "while the meetings of a municipal planning board are certainly subject to .... OPMA, and therefore must be properly noticed under the act ... no public comment period is required at such meetings."

"While allowing time for public comment at planning board meetings is good public policy, it is not a legal requirement," she wrote.

At the Planning Board's Dec. 3 meeting, Chairman Charles Nalbantian informed residents that the board will permit open public comments on multi-family housing at the Jan. 7 hearing. Potential speakers have been asked to keep their comments to no more than two minutes.